Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Imperial County Air Pollution Control District, 23677-23683 [2013-09307]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 77 / Monday, April 22, 2013 / Rules and Regulations the United States. All designations and changes in designations of defense articles and defense services subject to permanent import control under this part must have the concurrence of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, with notice given to the Secretary of Commerce. ■ 3. Amend § 447.11 by revising the definition of the term ‘‘Article’’ to read as follows: § 447.11 Meaning of terms. * * * * * Article. Any of the defense articles enumerated in the U.S. Munitions Import List (USMIL). * * * * * ■ 4. Amend § 447.21 as follows: ■ a. Revise the introductory text. ■ b. Remove the second ‘‘Note’’ in Category IV. ■ c. Add and reserve after Category IV a heading ‘‘Category V’’. ■ d. In Category VII, remove the ‘‘Note’’ after paragraph (c) and add and reserve paragraphs (d) and (e). ■ e. In Category VIII, revise the title and remove the first ‘‘Note’’ after paragraph (a) and in its place add and reserve paragraph (b). ■ f. Add and reserve after Category VIII a heading ‘‘Categories IX through XIII’’. ■ g. Remove the ‘‘Note’’ after paragraph (b) in Category XVI. ■ h. Add and reserve after Category XVI a heading ‘‘Categories XVII through XIX’’. ■ i. Revise Category XXI. These amendments to § 447.21 read as follows: § 447.21 The U.S. Munitions Import List. The following defense articles and defense services, designated pursuant to section 38(a) of the Arms Export Control Act, 22 U.S.C. 2778(a), and E.O. 13637 are subject to controls under this part. For purposes of this part, the list shall be known as the U.S. Munitions Import List (USMIL): THE U.S. MUNITIONS IMPORT LIST (USMIL) * * * * * * * * tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Local agency ICAPCD ICAPCD ICAPCD ICAPCD * * * (d) [Reserved] (e) [Reserved] * * * * * CATEGORY VIII—AIRCRAFT AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT * * * * (b) [Reserved] * * * * * * CATEGORIES IX–XIII [Reserved] * * * * * CATEGORIES XVII–XIX [Reserved] * * * * * CATEGORY XXI—MISCELLANEOUS ARTICLES Any defense article or defense service not specifically enumerated in the other categories of the USMIL that has substantial military applicability and that has been specifically designed or modified for military purposes. The decision as to whether any article may be included in this category shall be made by the Attorney General with the concurrence of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense. Dated: April 17, 2013. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General. [FR Doc. 2013–09392 Filed 4–19–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–FY–P portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This action was proposed in the Federal Register on January 7, 2013 and concerns local rules that regulate inhalable particulate matter (PM) emissions from sources of fugitive dust such as unpaved roads and disturbed soils in open and agricultural areas in Imperial County. We are approving local rules that regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). This rule will be effective on May 22, 2013. DATES: EPA has established docket number EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0960 for this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at https:// www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105–3901. While all documents in the docket are listed at https://www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-volume reports), and some may not be available in either location (e.g., confidential business information (CBI)). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. ADDRESSES: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0960; FRL–9799–3] Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Imperial County Air Pollution Control District Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: Rule No. 16:23 Apr 19, 2013 * EPA is finalizing approval of revisions to the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District (ICAPCD) * ............. ............. ............. ............. VerDate Mar<15>2010 * SUMMARY: CATEGORY V [Reserved] * CATEGORY VII—TANKS AND MILITARY VEHICLES Christine Vineyard, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–4125, vineyard.christine@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. Table of Contents I. Proposed Action II. Public Comments and EPA Responses III. EPA Action IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Proposed Action On January 7, 2013 (78 FR 922), EPA proposed to approve the following rules into the California SIP. Rule title 800 804 805 806 Adopted General Requirements for Control of Final Particulate Matter (PM10) ........ Open Areas .................................................................................................. Paved and Unpaved Roads ......................................................................... Conservation Management Practices (CMPs) ............................................ Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4700 23677 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22APR1.SGM 22APR1 10/16/12 10/16/12 10/16/12 10/16/12 Submitted 11/07/12 11/07/12 11/07/12 11/07/12 23678 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 77 / Monday, April 22, 2013 / Rules and Regulations We proposed to approve these rules because we determined that they complied with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action contains more information on the rules and our evaluation. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES II. Public Comments and EPA Responses EPA’s proposed action provided a 30day public comment period. During this period, we received from the following parties: 1. Luis Olmedo, Comite Civico Del Valle (Comite), letter dated September 20, 2012 (resubmitted via email January 3, 2013). 2. Lisa Belenky, Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), letter dated September 20, 2012 (resubmitted via email February 6, 2013). 3. Eric Massey, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), letter dated February 6, 2013. Comment #1—Comite claims that ICAPCD Rule 800 does not meet Best Available Control Measure (BACM) requirements because it does not address recreational off-highway vehicle (OHV) use on private land. The comment mentions OHV requirements in Arizona and Nevada that apply on both public and private land. The comment acknowledges that Rule 804 would regulate OHV use on private land, but asserts that it is not enforceable because it does not require dust control plans (DCPs). Response #1—The private land OHV restrictions in ICAPCD Rule 804 are more stringent than the public land OHV restrictions in Rule 800. Rule 804 Section E.1 requires all persons with jurisdiction over even relatively small open areas to maintain a stabilized surface at all times and limit visible dust emissions (VDE) to 20% opacity. This effectively prohibits OHV activity on private land because significant OHV activity on a dirt lot would generally lead to unstabilized surfaces and over 20% opacity. Additionally, Rule 804 Section E.2 requires private land owners to prevent illegal OHV activity by posting signs or installing physical barriers. Comment #2—Comite claims that ICAPCD has not, as directed in EPA’s limited disapproval, evaluated ‘‘the feasibility and impacts of additional restrictions in recreational OHV areas, such as closing some of the 250 square miles that are open to OHV use * * *.’’ Response #2—Such evaluation was performed and included in APCD’s submittal of the Regulation VIII SIP VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:23 Apr 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 revisions.1 Sections 3 and 4 of this evaluation list and analyze the feasibility and impacts of additional OHV restrictions including restrictions on OHV locations. Regarding the potential to close some of the 250 square miles, for example, section 4.1 states that, ‘‘BLM and State Parks officials believe that further limiting the size of OHV areas would have the effect of increasing illegal OHV activity on nontravelled lands.’’ Comment #3—Comite states that ICAPCD Rule 802 does not fulfill BACM requirements because it inappropriately exempts transportation/hauling of bulk material within a facility’s property, eviscerating the intent of Rule 802. The comment notes that South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403(g) does not include this exemption. Response #3—We agree that Imperial Rule 802 would be improved by removing the exemption for transportation/hauling of bulk material within a facility’s property similar to SCAQMD 403(g). However, bulk material, the subject of Imperial Rule 802, has not been identified as a significant PM10 source subject to BACM requirements.2 As a result, ICAPCD is not required to improve Rule 802 in this way at this time, ICAPCD did not revise and resubmit Rule 802, and EPA is not acting on Rule 802 at this time. Comment #4—Comite states that ICAPCD Rule 803 does not fulfill BACM requirements because it inappropriately exempts agricultural roads from trackout requirements unlike other areas in California including San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). Response #4—The comment does not identify and we are not aware of any specific SJVAPCD track-out requirements that are more stringent than ICAPCD requirements. SJVAPCD’s general carryout and track-out rule specifically exempts agricultural operations.3 SJVAPCD’s agricultural dust rule simply requires that agricultural roads comply with California State law regarding trackout,4 to which Imperial County sources are also subject. In addition, ICAPCD Rule 806 includes track-out BACM for agricultural operations comparable to 1 ‘‘Off-Highway Vehicle Area Best Available Control Measures Assessment,’’ prepared for ICAPCD by Environ International Corporation, October 2012 (2012 BACM assessment). 2 See, e.g., 75 FR 8010 (February 23, 2010). 3 ‘‘Carryout and Trackout,’’ SJVAPCD Rule 8041, Section 4.0, adopted August 19, 2004. 4 ‘‘Agricultural Sources,’’ SJVAPCD Rule 8081, Section 5.4, adopted September 16, 2004. PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 those in SJVAPCD’s analogous conservation management practices (CMP) requirements.5 Comment #5—Comite states that ICAPCD Rule 804 does not fulfill BACM requirements because it imposes minimal controls on disturbed open lots above certain sizes with no regard as to what activities, beyond OHV, are occurring. The comment claims that SCAQMD Rule 403, in contrast, controls lots of any size with disturbed surface area and contains additional control, permitting and reporting requirements on other types of activities, including construction and confined animal facilities (CAF). Response #5—ICAPCD estimates that over 99.5% of open areas potentially affected by ICAPCD Rule 804 are in parcels of 3 acres or greater.6 We expect, therefore, that lowering this threshold would have very limited emission impact while being relatively expensive by applying to the smallest sources. ICAPCD also notes that SJVAPCD Rule 8051 has a similar 3 acre threshold previously approved as BACM and projected to capture 98% of parcel acreage in SJVAPCD.7 ICAPCD Rule 804 contains relatively stringent enforceable requirements common to other approved dust regulations found elsewhere (e.g., SJVAPCD 8051). Sources must maintain records demonstrating that they have limited opacity to 20% by one of three defined soil stabilization techniques. The comment notes that SCAQMD Rule 403 imposes additional requirements on other activities, including construction and CAFs. However, ICAPCD provides additional requirements for these activities in other regulations (ICAPCD Rule 801, Construction and Earthmoving Activities, and Rule 217, Large Confined Animal Facilities Permits Required) which are not subject of today’s action. In addition, neither construction nor CAFs have been identified as significant PM10 sources subject to BACM requirements.8 As a result, ICAPCD is not required to apply BACM to these sources at this time and EPA is not acting on ICAPCD Rules 217 or 801. However, we agree that SCAQMD Rule 403 does impose some additional specific requirements that 5 ‘‘List of Conservation Management Practices,’’ May 20, 2004, referenced by ‘‘Conservation Management Practices,’’ SJVAPCD Rule 4550, adopted August 19, 2004. 6 ‘‘Draft Final Technical Memorandum, Regulation VIII BACM Analysis,’’ Prepared for ICAPCD by Environ International Corp, October 2005 (2005 BACM Analysis), Appendix C, pg. C–19. 7 Ibid. 8 See, e.g., 75 FR 8010 (February 23, 2010). E:\FR\FM\22APR1.SGM 22APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 77 / Monday, April 22, 2013 / Rules and Regulations tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES ICAPCD should consider if additional emission reductions are needed in the future. We also note that ICAPCD previously considered additional specificity such as that included in SCAQMD Rule 403, but determined it was not more stringent than ICAPCD Regulation VIII.9 Comment #6—Comite asserts that ICAPCD Rule 805 does not fulfill BACM requirements because it inappropriately exempts agricultural roads, and regulates them under less stringent requirements in ICAPCD Rule 806. This exemption is contrary to EPA’s earlier recommendations that, ‘‘ICAPCD must remove the exemption in Rule 805 Section D.2 or demonstrate how BACM is met in Imperial County for farm roads and traffic areas that are subject to less stringent requirements than other roads and traffic areas in the County and farm roads and traffic areas in other areas.’’ The comment mentions, in contrast, SJVAPCD requirements. Response #6—The comment is correct that EPA previously identified the exemption in ICAPCD Rule 805 Section D.2 as a rule deficiency, and ICAPCD has not removed this exemption from Rule 805.10 However, ICAPCD has addressed the substance of this deficiency by establishing appropriate opacity limits and stabilization requirements for agricultural roads, in addition to CMP requirements, in Rule 806, particularly in Sections E.3 and E.4. These requirements are analogous to, and more stringent than,11 analogous requirements in SJVAPCD. See also Response #11 below. Comment #7—Comite states that ICAPCD Rule 805 Section E.7 does not fulfill BACM requirements because it fails to enforceably require compliance with road paving requirements. The comment states that this lack of enforceability is a particular concern because EPA has stated that Imperial County must expedite these road paving requirements or, ‘‘demonstrate good faith efforts to increase funding and priority of road stabilization projects consistent with national guidance.’’ Response #7—EPA previously identified ICAPCD Rule 805 Section E.7 as deficient because it was not clear that the County was required to implement (and not just submit) a stabilization plan; stabilize different unpaved roads each year; and maintain all stabilized 9 2005 BACM analysis, appendix B, pg. B–6. FR 39367 (July 8, 2010). 11 SJVAPCD Rule 4550 requires opacity limits and stabilization on unpaved roads when daily vehicle trips (VDT) are 75 or more or 25 VDT for 3-axle vehicles, whereas ICAPCD Rule 806 contains these requirements for 50 or more VDT or 20 VDT for 3-axle vehicles. 10 75 VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:23 Apr 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 roads.12 Adopted and submitted revisions to ICAPCD Rule 805 Sections E.7.b and c explicitly and adequately address these concerns. For example, Section E.7.b was revised to explicitly require plan compliance. In addition, ICAPCD adequately demonstrated ‘‘good faith efforts to increase funding and priority of road stabilization projects,’’ by correspondence from the County Public Works Department explaining budget efforts 13 along with information provided in ICAPCD’s 2009 PM10 SIP.14 We assume this addresses the concerns of the comment as we are not aware of any other enforcement concerns with Rule 805 Section E.7. Comment #8—Comite asserts that ICAPCD Rule 805 does not fulfill BACM requirements because it does not impose sufficiently stringent control measures. Specifically, the comment notes that while SCAQMD Rule 403 and Imperial Rule 805 Section E both impose controls based on the type of road, SCAQMD Rule 403 also requires additional measures for roads used for construction activity or large operations. Response #8—SCAQMD Rule 403 contains few requirements specific to roads used at construction activity or large operations and it is not clear which requirements are subject of this comment. We note the following specific requirements in Rule 403 Table 1 regarding construction: Section 15–1, stabilize all off-road traffic and parking areas; section 15–2, stabilize all haul routes; and section 15–3, direct construction traffic over established haul routes. Similarly we note in Rule 403 Table 2 regarding large operations: Section 4a, water all roads used for any vehicular traffic at least once per every two hours of active operations; or section 4b, water all roads used for any vehicular traffic once daily and restrict vehicle speeds to 15 miles per hour; or section 4c, apply a chemical stabilizer to all unpaved road surfaces in sufficient quantity and frequency to maintain a stabilized surface. We do not see a direct analog to section 15–3 in ICAPCD Rules 801 or 805, although we would not expect significant emission impacts partly because construction sites are incentivized to minimize the active roads requiring stabilization. The comment has not provided and we have 12 Ibid. 13 Letter from William Brunet (Imperial County Department of Public Works) to Brad Poiriez (ICAPCD), May 11, 2012, included as part of comment #4 in CARB’s 2012 Regulation VIII SIP submittal to EPA. 14 ‘‘2009 Imperial County State Implementation Plan for Particulate Matter Less Than 10 Microns in Aerodynamic Diameter, Final,’’ adopted by ICAPCD Governing Board on August 11, 2009, e.g., section 4.2.5, pg. 4–7. PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 23679 no evidence that the other SCAQMD requirements listed above are more stringent than the road stabilization requirements in ICAPCD Rules 801 and 805. We also note that construction has not been identified as a significant PM10 source subject to BACM requirements in ICAPCD.15 As a result, ICAPCD is not required to submit Rule 801 at this time and EPA is not acting on Rule 801 in this action. Comment #9—Comite states that ICAPCD Rule 806 does not fulfill BACM requirements and is rendered unenforceable because it lacks a CMP application submittal and review process, and requires only that agricultural operators maintain a CMP plan and records to confirm implementation. The comment asserts (and references Latino Issues Forum v. EPA and EPA’s 2010 action on Rule 806 for this assertion) that BACM requires that Rule 806 maintain an application submittal and review process such as contained in SJVAPCD Rule 4550 and Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (GBUAPCD) Rule 502. Response #9—EPA’s 2010 limited approval/disapproval of Regulation VIII notes that the CMPs, ‘‘are broadly defined and there is no other mechanism in the rule to ensure specificity.’’ 16 As suggested here and made clearer in EPA’s TSD supporting our 2010 proposed action,17 the deficiency in the rule is the lack of specificity in defining the CMPs. The most direct way to address this is to more specifically define the CMPs. Alternatively, this deficiency could be addressed by adding a CMP application submittal and approval process, such as contained in SJVAPCD Rule 4550.18 ICAPCD has selected the former approach in revising ICAPCD Rule 806, and has adequately addressed this rule deficiency by extensively clarifying and strengthening numerous CMP definitions and related text in Rule 806. In doing so, ICAPCD has incorporated sufficient clarity and specificity directly into the CMP definitions and requirements so that CMP implementation and enforceability at a BACM level is clear to all parties. For example, the definition of mulching in Rule 806 Section C.30 was revised from: ‘‘Applying or leaving plant residue or 15 See, e.g., 75 FR 8010 (February 23, 2010). FR 39367 (July 8, 2010). 17 ‘‘Technical Support Document for EPA’s Proposed Rulemaking on Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan as submitted by the State of California, for the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District,’’ U.S. EPA, Region 9 Air Division, February 2010, (2010 TSD) pg. 9. 18 See Latino Issues Forum v. EPA, 558 F.3d 936, 949 (9th Cir. 2009). 16 75 E:\FR\FM\22APR1.SGM 22APR1 23680 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 77 / Monday, April 22, 2013 / Rules and Regulations tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES other material to soil surface. It reduces entrainment of PM due to winds as well as reduces weed competition thereby reducing tillage passes and compaction.’’ The new text reads: ‘‘Reducing PM10 emissions and wind erosion and preserving soil moisture by uniformly applying a protective layer of plant residue or other material to a soil surface prior to disturbing the site to reduce soil movement. Mulching material shall be evenly applied, and if necessary, anchored to the soil. Mulch should achieve a minimum 70% cover, and a minimum of 2 inch height above the surface. Inorganic material used for mulching should consist of pieces of .75 to 2 inches in diameter.’’ 19 Comment #10 (p.8)—Comite notes that ICAPCD Rule 806 only applies to farms above 40 acres, while SCAQMD and Maricopa’s rules apply to farms above 10 acres, and Comite claims that ICAPCD’s BACM analysis does not address whether lowering Rule 806’s threshold could obtain further emission reductions that are significant and economically feasible. Response #10—It is standard practice for air pollution regulations to exempt small sources which contribute relatively few emissions and are the least cost-effective to control. ICAPCD’s 2009 PM10 SIP estimates that Rule 806’s 40 acre threshold captures 97% of total emissions,20 suggesting that there are no further emission reductions that are significant and economically feasible. While SCAQMD and Maricopa have lower applicability thresholds than ICAPCD, rules approved as BACM in other areas have higher thresholds (e.g., SJVAPCD’s is 100 acres). We also note that this threshold remains unchanged from the previous version of ICAPCD Rule 806, and no comments were provided when EPA acted on it in 2010. Comment #11—Comite claims that ICAPCD Rule 806 imposes insufficient controls on unpaved farm roads compared to Rule 805 requirements for Imperial non-farm roads and other area requirements for farm roads. As an example, the comment notes that SJVAPCD requires farm roads to meet control measures required for agricultural operations in addition to general requirements that apply to all other roads. Response #11—We agree that this was a deficiency of the previous version of ICAPCD Regulation VIII. However, 19 ‘‘Technical Support Document for EPA’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan as submitted by the State of California, for the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District,’’ U.S. EPA, Region 9 Air Division, December 2012, (2012 TSD) pg. 8. 20 2010 TSD, pg 12. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:23 Apr 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 ICAPCD has revised Rule 806 Sections D.2, D.3, E.3 and E.4 to specifically and adequately address this issue. Revised Section E.3, for instance, now requires stabilization of agricultural unpaved roads with 50 or more vehicle daily trips (VDT), similar to that required of non-agricultural roads with 50 or more VDT in ICAPCD Rule 805 Section E.2., and of all unpaved roads with 75 or more VDT subject to SJVAPCD Rule 8081 Section 5.2. See also Response #6 above. Comment #12—Comite asserts that ICAPCD Rule 806’s windblown dust controls are inadequate and generally describes the requirements in SCAQMD Rule 403’s Agricultural Handbook. The comment states that SCAQMD requires cessation of soil preparation and maintenance activities when winds exceed 25 mph, as well as implementation of one of four specific practices to reduce windblown dust from actively disturbed fields and three of nine specific practices to reduce windblown dust from inactive (fallow) fields. Response #12—SCAQMD’s Agricultural Handbook and Imperial Rule 806 are structured somewhat differently, making a direct comparison between the two programs difficult.21 For example, SCAQMD does not specifically refer to the prohibition on tilling or mulching when wind speeds exceed 25 mph as a ‘‘windblown dust control,’’ whereas ICAPCD Rule 806 includes specific provisions, E.6.1 and 2, as ‘‘windblown dust controls.’’ Nevertheless, we note that the SCAQMD prohibition applies only when winds exceed 25 mph. In comparison, ICAPCD requires operators to comply with the windblown dust controls specified in E.6.1. (for active cultivation) and E.6.2. (for fallow fields), regardless of wind speed. The commenter provides no evidence for a finding that the SCAQMD prohibition is more effective than ICAPCD’s more generally applicable requirements. The comment also states that SCAQMD requires operators to comply with ‘‘one of four specific practices to reduce windblown dust from actively disturbed fields.’’ Again, because the SCAQMD rule does not specifically refer to ‘‘windblown dust,’’ it is difficult to determine whether SCAQMD distinguishes between regulating ‘‘windblown dust’’ and regulating fugitive dust directly emitted during tillage, cultivation, and mulching 21 We note that the commenter lists the general requirements in the SCAQMD rule but does not provide any comparison or analysis of the two programs. PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 operations. Nevertheless, we note that the SCAQMD rule requires selection and implementation of one option for ‘‘active lands,’’ whereas ICAPCD regulates direct emissions of fugitive dust by requiring selection and implementation of three options, one each from three separate categories of activities: (1) Land preparation (E.1.); (2) harvest (E.2.); and (3) cropland-other (E.5.). For inactive operations, SCAQMD requires operators to select and comply with three of eight specified practices; we believe the comparable provisions for ICAPCD are found at section E.6.1. of Rule 806, in which ICAPCD requires selection and compliance with one of eight specified practices. We note that the practices specified in the SCAQMD rule for inactive lands are essentially identical to the practices specified in E.6.2. of the ICAPCD rule for fallow lands. Although it appears that SCAQMD requires more measures for inactive lands than ICAPCD requires for fallow lands, the commenter does not acknowledge other ways in which the ICAPCD rule is more stringent than the SCAQMD program. Overall, both the SCAQMD and ICAPCD programs require agricultural operations to comply with five options each: SCAQMD requires compliance with the 25 mph prohibition, one option for active cultivation and three options for inactive lands; ICAPCD requires selection and implementation of one option to control windblown dust on actively cultivated lands, three additional options for actively cultivated lands, and one option for fallow lands. The commenter provided no information to support a finding that SCAQMD’s approach of imposing more requirements on inactive lands is more stringent or more effective at controlling fugitive dust than ICAPCD’s approach of imposing more requirements on actively cultivated lands. As we have noted previously, regulations for agricultural sources must be sufficiently flexible to account for the wide range of factors such as crop type, herd size, equipment type, soil type, weather and market conditions, economic circumstances and facility size. In addition, there is a limited amount of technical information regarding the cost effectiveness of available control measures for agricultural operations. See 71 FR 7684 (February 14, 2006). As a result, it is reasonable to expect that BACM measures for this activity would vary depending on the agricultural practices in different areas and, in fact, Maricopa, South Coast, and San Joaquin agricultural CMP rules have all been E:\FR\FM\22APR1.SGM 22APR1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 77 / Monday, April 22, 2013 / Rules and Regulations approved as BACM despite differences similar to that identified in the comment. Finally, we note that the Imperial Rule 806 is based on and is at least as stringent as SJVUAPCD Rule 4550, which EPA approved as having BACM-level controls. Id. Comment #13—Comite states that ICAPCD Rule 802 Section D.1 and Rule 806 Section D.4 provide ICAPCD with excessive discretion to alter SIPapproved control measures, particularly with regard to deviations from required control measures (Rule 802) and development of alternative control measures (Rule 806). The comment notes that EPA’s 2010 action on Regulation VIII specifically identified the discretion in Rule 802 Section D.1 as a deficiency. Response #13—We agree that Rule 802 Section D.1 would be improved by removing the discretion described in the comment. However, bulk material, the subject of Imperial Rule 802, has not been identified as a significant PM10 source subject to BACM requirements. As a result, ICAPCD is not required to improve Rule 802 in this way at this time, ICAPCD did not revise and resubmit Rule 802, and EPA is not acting on Rule 802 at this time. See also Response #3 above. With regard to the commenter’s reference to Rule 806, Section D.4, we assume the comment intended to refer to Rule 806 Section D.6 which contains discretion. This discretion is similar to discretion approved in SJVAPCD Rule 4550 Section 6.2.3.2, and has been restricted by requiring alternative CMPs in ICAPCD to be at least equivalent to the most effective CMPs already available. While such discretion may not be appropriate for more traditional stationary sources, it is reasonable at this time given the variability and limited regulatory history of the affected sources.22 As ICAPCD gains experience regulating this industry, it may be appropriate to reduce this discretion in the future. Comment #14—Comite asserts that EPA cannot stay CAA sanctions based on a proposed approval of revised Regulation VIII, but only upon final and full approval. Response #14—As explained in our Interim Final Rule, we invoked the good cause exception under the APA as the basis for not providing public comment before the action took effect.23 Our review of the State’s submittal indicated that it was more likely than not that the State had submitted a revision to the SIP 22 See, e.g., 71 FR 7684 and 7686 (February 14, 2006). 23 78 FR 894 (January 7, 2013). VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:23 Apr 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 that addressed the issues we identified in our earlier action that started the sanctions clocks. We concluded that it was therefore not in the public interest to impose sanctions. Our use of the good cause exception thus relieved restrictions that were unnecessary because the State had already taken the steps it needed to take to submit an approvable rule. The only action that remained to be taken was EPA’s action to complete our rulemaking, including reviewing and responding to public comments on our proposed action. As explained in our Interim Final Rule, we could have disapproved the rule, if justified by public comments. However, we are now finalizing our action with an approval of the State’s submittal, which further supports the reasonableness of our use of the good cause exception to avoid needless hardship on entities and individuals in the Imperial Valley. Comment #15—CBD claims that proposed rule revisions are inadequate to address the serious and ongoing PM10 air pollution concerns in Imperial County, particularly regarding emissions due to OHV use on public lands. The comment asks EPA to reject the rule revisions because they will not adequately improve air quality as required by law. Response #15—ICAPCD revised and resubmitted Regulation VIII primarily to address the CAA obligation for PM10 BACM, and EPA is similarly evaluating the rules primarily to ensure that they fulfill BACM. The broader air pollution issues raised by this comment, as to whether the rules are sufficient to address Imperial’s overall PM10 problem, are appropriately addressed separately through the CAA obligations for ICAPCD and CARB to develop a PM10 attainment demonstration. Comment #16—CBD states that the proposed rule revisions fail to provide sufficient guidance, limitations or enforcement measures to ensure that the OHV DCPs are adequate and fully implemented. The comment asserts that the revised rule relies on good faith implementation by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR), which is not warranted by past practice. Response #16—ICAPCD has significantly revised the OHV DCP requirements in ICAPCD Rule 800 Sections D.3 and F to make them more stringent and enforceable. For example, Section F.5.b.2 now requires maps showing OHV areas, Section F.5.c now explicitly requires stabilization of hightraffic roads and traffic areas during OHV events, Section F.5.d now requires description of all monitoring and PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 23681 corrective action to reduce emissions during OHV events, and Section F.7 establishes additional requirements for new OHV areas. While we agree that some of the OHV requirements are not as specific and prescriptive as many requirements for traditional stationary sources (e.g., facility X must emit under Y pounds/day), they are adequately enforceable and appropriate given the variability (e.g., the popularity and thus emissions of specific OHV areas change over time) and limited regulatory history of this activity. We also believe these controls are sufficiently stringent to fulfill the CAA BACM requirements as demonstrated by the 2012 BACM assessment. See also Response #2 above. However, we encourage ICAPCD to consider further controls in OHV areas if additional emission reductions are needed in the future to meet federal and/or State ambient air quality standards. Comment #17—CBD states that BLM recently issued a proposed Recreational Area Management Plan (RAMP) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) proposing to increase the area in Imperial open to OHV use by 40,000 acres, further increasing PM10 emissions. The comment notes that EPA had previously expressed concerns about potential increased air quality impacts of the BLM’s preferred alternative in the FEIS and that BLM largely ignored EPA’s comments. The comment asserts that additional shortcomings of the FEIS are further evidence that BLM cannot be relied on for good-faith efforts to comply with ICAPCD Rule 800. Response #17—EPA’s previous comments regarding BLM’s RAMP and FEIS are independent of today’s action on revisions to ICAPCD’s Regulation VIII. Revisions to Rule 800 Section F.7 establish additional requirements for new OHV areas, but do not prohibit increased OHV areas and associated PM10 emissions. ICAPCD Regulation VIII’s OHV requirements are adequately enforceable and do not rely solely on good-faith efforts at compliance. See also Response #16 above. Comment #18—ADEQ recommends that EPA continue to evaluate BACM on a case-by-case basis, considering the relative contributions of source categories such as OHVs, to ensure that the most cost-effective control measures appropriate for contributing anthropogenic sources in each planning area are adopted and implemented. Response #18—EPA agrees that local conditions should be considered as part of a BACM analysis and ICAPCD has included such information in its BACM analysis. For example, EPA agrees that E:\FR\FM\22APR1.SGM 22APR1 23682 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 77 / Monday, April 22, 2013 / Rules and Regulations tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES ICAPCD has adequately demonstrated BACM for OHV activity based in part on the 2012 BACM assessment which includes discussion of local conditions (e.g., less than 1% of open lands are urban vacant areas in Imperial County compared to 52% of Maricopa’s nonattainment area open lands.) 24 Comment #19—ADEQ does not support any presumption that inclusion of prerequisites similar to those in ICAPCD Rule 801 Section D are necessary to determine that a rule is BACM. Rather, the comment encourages EPA to continue reviewing each rule in the context of each area’s overall air pollution control strategy when making a determination that a rule fulfills BACM or most stringent control measure requirements. Response #19—As mentioned in Response #18 above, we agree that local conditions should be considered as part of a BACM analysis. We also believe that the existence of requirements in other areas should be considered as part of a BACM analysis. For example, it would be relevant for a BACM analysis for OHV in Arizona to consider both ICAPCD Rule 801 and any local conditions specific to Arizona. However, today’s action regards ICAPCD Rules 800, 804, 805 and 806, and nothing in the comment suggests any change to our proposed approval. III. EPA Action No comments changed our assessment of the rule as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving these rules into the California SIP. This action permanently terminates all sanctions and FIP implications associated with the July 8, 2010 final action. EPA’s preliminary view is that the Regulation VIII rules as revised in October 2012 constitute reasonable control of the sources covered by Regulation VIII for the purpose of evaluating whether an exceedance of the PM10 NAAQS is an exceptional event pursuant to the exceptional events rule, including reasonable and appropriate control measures on significant contributing anthropogenic sources. This statement does not extend to exceedances of NAAQS other than the PM10 NAAQS, or to events that differ significantly in terms of meteorology, sources, or conditions from the events that were at issue in EPA’s July 2010 final action and associated litigation. EPA is not making any determinations at this time with respect to any specific PM10 exceedances. 24 2012 BACM Assessment, pg. 8. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:23 Apr 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action: • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); • does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); • is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); • does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); • does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); • is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); • is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); • is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and • does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 21, 2013. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: March 27, 2013. Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 52 [AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart F—California 2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(424) to read as follows: ■ § 52.220 Identification of plan. * * * * * (c) * * * (424) New and amended regulations for the following APCDs were submitted E:\FR\FM\22APR1.SGM 22APR1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 77 / Monday, April 22, 2013 / Rules and Regulations on November 7, 2012 by the Governor’s designee. (i) Incorporation by Reference (A) Imperial County Air Pollution Control District (1) Rule 800, ‘‘General Requirements for Control of Fine Particulate Matter PM10,’’ amended on October 16, 2012. [2] Rule 804, ‘‘Open Areas,’’ amended on October 16, 2012. [3] Rule 805, ‘‘Paved and Unpaved Roads,’’ amended on October 16, 2012. [4] Rule 806, ‘‘Conservation Management Practices (CMPs),’’ amended on October 16, 2012. [FR Doc. 2013–09307 Filed 4–19–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 120918468–3111–02] RIN 0648–XC605 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod by Catcher/Processors Using Trawl Gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. AGENCY: NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher/ processors (C/Ps) using trawl gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the A season allowance of the 2013 Pacific cod total allowable catch apportioned to C/Ps using trawl gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:23 Apr 19, 2013 Jkt 229001 Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), April 17, 2013, through 1200 hours, A.l.t., September 1, 2013. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Obren Davis, 907–586–7228. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. Regulations governing sideboard protections for GOA groundfish fisheries appear at subpart B of 50 CFR part 680. The A season allowance of the 2013 Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) apportioned to C/Ps using trawl gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA is 726 metric tons (mt), as established by the final 2013 and 2014 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (78 FR 13162, February 26, 2013). In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) has determined that the A season allowance of the 2013 Pacific cod TAC apportioned to C/Ps using trawl gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 526 mt, and is setting aside the remaining 200 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by C/Ps using trawl gear in the DATES: PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 9990 23683 Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip. Classification This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the directed fishing closure of Pacific cod for C/Ps using trawl gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of April 16, 2013. The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment. This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Dated: April 17, 2013. Kara Meckley, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 2013–09389 Filed 4–17–13; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510–22–P E:\FR\FM\22APR1.SGM 22APR1

Agencies

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 77 (Monday, April 22, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23677-23683]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09307]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0960; FRL-9799-3]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Imperial
County Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of revisions to the Imperial County
Air Pollution Control District (ICAPCD) portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). This action was proposed in the Federal
Register on January 7, 2013 and concerns local rules that regulate
inhalable particulate matter (PM) emissions from sources of fugitive
dust such as unpaved roads and disturbed soils in open and agricultural
areas in Imperial County. We are approving local rules that regulate
these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

DATES: This rule will be effective on May 22, 2013.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0960 for
this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-
3901. While all documents in the docket are listed at https://www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at
the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-
volume reports), and some may not be available in either location
(e.g., confidential business information (CBI)). To inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Vineyard, EPA Region IX,
(415) 947-4125, vineyard.christine@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

On January 7, 2013 (78 FR 922), EPA proposed to approve the
following rules into the California SIP.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICAPCD......................... 800 General Requirements for 10/16/12 11/07/12
Control of Final Particulate
Matter (PM10).
ICAPCD......................... 804 Open Areas..................... 10/16/12 11/07/12
ICAPCD......................... 805 Paved and Unpaved Roads........ 10/16/12 11/07/12
ICAPCD......................... 806 Conservation Management 10/16/12 11/07/12
Practices (CMPs).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 23678]]

We proposed to approve these rules because we determined that they
complied with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action
contains more information on the rules and our evaluation.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received from the following parties:
1. Luis Olmedo, Comite Civico Del Valle (Comite), letter dated
September 20, 2012 (resubmitted via email January 3, 2013).
2. Lisa Belenky, Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), letter
dated September 20, 2012 (resubmitted via email February 6, 2013).
3. Eric Massey, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ),
letter dated February 6, 2013.
Comment #1--Comite claims that ICAPCD Rule 800 does not meet Best
Available Control Measure (BACM) requirements because it does not
address recreational off-highway vehicle (OHV) use on private land. The
comment mentions OHV requirements in Arizona and Nevada that apply on
both public and private land. The comment acknowledges that Rule 804
would regulate OHV use on private land, but asserts that it is not
enforceable because it does not require dust control plans (DCPs).
Response #1--The private land OHV restrictions in ICAPCD Rule 804
are more stringent than the public land OHV restrictions in Rule 800.
Rule 804 Section E.1 requires all persons with jurisdiction over even
relatively small open areas to maintain a stabilized surface at all
times and limit visible dust emissions (VDE) to 20% opacity. This
effectively prohibits OHV activity on private land because significant
OHV activity on a dirt lot would generally lead to unstabilized
surfaces and over 20% opacity. Additionally, Rule 804 Section E.2
requires private land owners to prevent illegal OHV activity by posting
signs or installing physical barriers.
Comment #2--Comite claims that ICAPCD has not, as directed in EPA's
limited disapproval, evaluated ``the feasibility and impacts of
additional restrictions in recreational OHV areas, such as closing some
of the 250 square miles that are open to OHV use * * *.''
Response #2--Such evaluation was performed and included in APCD's
submittal of the Regulation VIII SIP revisions.\1\ Sections 3 and 4 of
this evaluation list and analyze the feasibility and impacts of
additional OHV restrictions including restrictions on OHV locations.
Regarding the potential to close some of the 250 square miles, for
example, section 4.1 states that, ``BLM and State Parks officials
believe that further limiting the size of OHV areas would have the
effect of increasing illegal OHV activity on non-travelled lands.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ ``Off-Highway Vehicle Area Best Available Control Measures
Assessment,'' prepared for ICAPCD by Environ International
Corporation, October 2012 (2012 BACM assessment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment #3--Comite states that ICAPCD Rule 802 does not fulfill
BACM requirements because it inappropriately exempts transportation/
hauling of bulk material within a facility's property, eviscerating the
intent of Rule 802. The comment notes that South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403(g) does not include this
exemption.
Response #3--We agree that Imperial Rule 802 would be improved by
removing the exemption for transportation/hauling of bulk material
within a facility's property similar to SCAQMD 403(g). However, bulk
material, the subject of Imperial Rule 802, has not been identified as
a significant PM10 source subject to BACM requirements.\2\
As a result, ICAPCD is not required to improve Rule 802 in this way at
this time, ICAPCD did not revise and resubmit Rule 802, and EPA is not
acting on Rule 802 at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ See, e.g., 75 FR 8010 (February 23, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment #4--Comite states that ICAPCD Rule 803 does not fulfill
BACM requirements because it inappropriately exempts agricultural roads
from track-out requirements unlike other areas in California including
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD).
Response #4--The comment does not identify and we are not aware of
any specific SJVAPCD track-out requirements that are more stringent
than ICAPCD requirements. SJVAPCD's general carryout and track-out rule
specifically exempts agricultural operations.\3\ SJVAPCD's agricultural
dust rule simply requires that agricultural roads comply with
California State law regarding track-out,\4\ to which Imperial County
sources are also subject. In addition, ICAPCD Rule 806 includes track-
out BACM for agricultural operations comparable to those in SJVAPCD's
analogous conservation management practices (CMP) requirements.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ ``Carryout and Trackout,'' SJVAPCD Rule 8041, Section 4.0,
adopted August 19, 2004.
\4\ ``Agricultural Sources,'' SJVAPCD Rule 8081, Section 5.4,
adopted September 16, 2004.
\5\ ``List of Conservation Management Practices,'' May 20, 2004,
referenced by ``Conservation Management Practices,'' SJVAPCD Rule
4550, adopted August 19, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment #5--Comite states that ICAPCD Rule 804 does not fulfill
BACM requirements because it imposes minimal controls on disturbed open
lots above certain sizes with no regard as to what activities, beyond
OHV, are occurring. The comment claims that SCAQMD Rule 403, in
contrast, controls lots of any size with disturbed surface area and
contains additional control, permitting and reporting requirements on
other types of activities, including construction and confined animal
facilities (CAF).
Response #5--ICAPCD estimates that over 99.5% of open areas
potentially affected by ICAPCD Rule 804 are in parcels of 3 acres or
greater.\6\ We expect, therefore, that lowering this threshold would
have very limited emission impact while being relatively expensive by
applying to the smallest sources. ICAPCD also notes that SJVAPCD Rule
8051 has a similar 3 acre threshold previously approved as BACM and
projected to capture 98% of parcel acreage in SJVAPCD.\7\ ICAPCD Rule
804 contains relatively stringent enforceable requirements common to
other approved dust regulations found elsewhere (e.g., SJVAPCD 8051).
Sources must maintain records demonstrating that they have limited
opacity to 20% by one of three defined soil stabilization techniques.
The comment notes that SCAQMD Rule 403 imposes additional requirements
on other activities, including construction and CAFs. However, ICAPCD
provides additional requirements for these activities in other
regulations (ICAPCD Rule 801, Construction and Earthmoving Activities,
and Rule 217, Large Confined Animal Facilities Permits Required) which
are not subject of today's action. In addition, neither construction
nor CAFs have been identified as significant PM10 sources
subject to BACM requirements.\8\ As a result, ICAPCD is not required to
apply BACM to these sources at this time and EPA is not acting on
ICAPCD Rules 217 or 801. However, we agree that SCAQMD Rule 403 does
impose some additional specific requirements that

[[Page 23679]]

ICAPCD should consider if additional emission reductions are needed in
the future. We also note that ICAPCD previously considered additional
specificity such as that included in SCAQMD Rule 403, but determined it
was not more stringent than ICAPCD Regulation VIII.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ ``Draft Final Technical Memorandum, Regulation VIII BACM
Analysis,'' Prepared for ICAPCD by Environ International Corp,
October 2005 (2005 BACM Analysis), Appendix C, pg. C-19.
\7\ Ibid.
\8\ See, e.g., 75 FR 8010 (February 23, 2010).
\9\ 2005 BACM analysis, appendix B, pg. B-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment #6--Comite asserts that ICAPCD Rule 805 does not fulfill
BACM requirements because it inappropriately exempts agricultural
roads, and regulates them under less stringent requirements in ICAPCD
Rule 806. This exemption is contrary to EPA's earlier recommendations
that, ``ICAPCD must remove the exemption in Rule 805 Section D.2 or
demonstrate how BACM is met in Imperial County for farm roads and
traffic areas that are subject to less stringent requirements than
other roads and traffic areas in the County and farm roads and traffic
areas in other areas.'' The comment mentions, in contrast, SJVAPCD
requirements.
Response #6--The comment is correct that EPA previously identified
the exemption in ICAPCD Rule 805 Section D.2 as a rule deficiency, and
ICAPCD has not removed this exemption from Rule 805.\10\ However,
ICAPCD has addressed the substance of this deficiency by establishing
appropriate opacity limits and stabilization requirements for
agricultural roads, in addition to CMP requirements, in Rule 806,
particularly in Sections E.3 and E.4. These requirements are analogous
to, and more stringent than,\11\ analogous requirements in SJVAPCD. See
also Response 11 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ 75 FR 39367 (July 8, 2010).
\11\ SJVAPCD Rule 4550 requires opacity limits and stabilization
on unpaved roads when daily vehicle trips (VDT) are 75 or more or 25
VDT for 3-axle vehicles, whereas ICAPCD Rule 806 contains these
requirements for 50 or more VDT or 20 VDT for 3-axle vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment #7--Comite states that ICAPCD Rule 805 Section E.7 does not
fulfill BACM requirements because it fails to enforceably require
compliance with road paving requirements. The comment states that this
lack of enforceability is a particular concern because EPA has stated
that Imperial County must expedite these road paving requirements or,
``demonstrate good faith efforts to increase funding and priority of
road stabilization projects consistent with national guidance.''
Response #7--EPA previously identified ICAPCD Rule 805 Section E.7
as deficient because it was not clear that the County was required to
implement (and not just submit) a stabilization plan; stabilize
different unpaved roads each year; and maintain all stabilized
roads.\12\ Adopted and submitted revisions to ICAPCD Rule 805 Sections
E.7.b and c explicitly and adequately address these concerns. For
example, Section E.7.b was revised to explicitly require plan
compliance. In addition, ICAPCD adequately demonstrated ``good faith
efforts to increase funding and priority of road stabilization
projects,'' by correspondence from the County Public Works Department
explaining budget efforts \13\ along with information provided in
ICAPCD's 2009 PM10 SIP.\14\ We assume this addresses the
concerns of the comment as we are not aware of any other enforcement
concerns with Rule 805 Section E.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ Ibid.
\13\ Letter from William Brunet (Imperial County Department of
Public Works) to Brad Poiriez (ICAPCD), May 11, 2012, included as
part of comment 4 in CARB's 2012 Regulation VIII SIP
submittal to EPA.
\14\ ``2009 Imperial County State Implementation Plan for
Particulate Matter Less Than 10 Microns in Aerodynamic Diameter,
Final,'' adopted by ICAPCD Governing Board on August 11, 2009, e.g.,
section 4.2.5, pg. 4-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment #8--Comite asserts that ICAPCD Rule 805 does not fulfill
BACM requirements because it does not impose sufficiently stringent
control measures. Specifically, the comment notes that while SCAQMD
Rule 403 and Imperial Rule 805 Section E both impose controls based on
the type of road, SCAQMD Rule 403 also requires additional measures for
roads used for construction activity or large operations.
Response #8--SCAQMD Rule 403 contains few requirements specific to
roads used at construction activity or large operations and it is not
clear which requirements are subject of this comment. We note the
following specific requirements in Rule 403 Table 1 regarding
construction: Section 15-1, stabilize all off-road traffic and parking
areas; section 15-2, stabilize all haul routes; and section 15-3,
direct construction traffic over established haul routes. Similarly we
note in Rule 403 Table 2 regarding large operations: Section 4a, water
all roads used for any vehicular traffic at least once per every two
hours of active operations; or section 4b, water all roads used for any
vehicular traffic once daily and restrict vehicle speeds to 15 miles
per hour; or section 4c, apply a chemical stabilizer to all unpaved
road surfaces in sufficient quantity and frequency to maintain a
stabilized surface. We do not see a direct analog to section 15-3 in
ICAPCD Rules 801 or 805, although we would not expect significant
emission impacts partly because construction sites are incentivized to
minimize the active roads requiring stabilization. The comment has not
provided and we have no evidence that the other SCAQMD requirements
listed above are more stringent than the road stabilization
requirements in ICAPCD Rules 801 and 805. We also note that
construction has not been identified as a significant PM10
source subject to BACM requirements in ICAPCD.\15\ As a result, ICAPCD
is not required to submit Rule 801 at this time and EPA is not acting
on Rule 801 in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ See, e.g., 75 FR 8010 (February 23, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment #9--Comite states that ICAPCD Rule 806 does not fulfill
BACM requirements and is rendered unenforceable because it lacks a CMP
application submittal and review process, and requires only that
agricultural operators maintain a CMP plan and records to confirm
implementation. The comment asserts (and references Latino Issues Forum
v. EPA and EPA's 2010 action on Rule 806 for this assertion) that BACM
requires that Rule 806 maintain an application submittal and review
process such as contained in SJVAPCD Rule 4550 and Great Basin Unified
Air Pollution Control District (GBUAPCD) Rule 502.
Response #9--EPA's 2010 limited approval/disapproval of Regulation
VIII notes that the CMPs, ``are broadly defined and there is no other
mechanism in the rule to ensure specificity.'' \16\ As suggested here
and made clearer in EPA's TSD supporting our 2010 proposed action,\17\
the deficiency in the rule is the lack of specificity in defining the
CMPs. The most direct way to address this is to more specifically
define the CMPs. Alternatively, this deficiency could be addressed by
adding a CMP application submittal and approval process, such as
contained in SJVAPCD Rule 4550.\18\ ICAPCD has selected the former
approach in revising ICAPCD Rule 806, and has adequately addressed this
rule deficiency by extensively clarifying and strengthening numerous
CMP definitions and related text in Rule 806. In doing so, ICAPCD has
incorporated sufficient clarity and specificity directly into the CMP
definitions and requirements so that CMP implementation and
enforceability at a BACM level is clear to all parties. For example,
the definition of mulching in Rule 806 Section C.30 was revised from:
``Applying or leaving plant residue or

[[Page 23680]]

other material to soil surface. It reduces entrainment of PM due to
winds as well as reduces weed competition thereby reducing tillage
passes and compaction.'' The new text reads: ``Reducing PM10
emissions and wind erosion and preserving soil moisture by uniformly
applying a protective layer of plant residue or other material to a
soil surface prior to disturbing the site to reduce soil movement.
Mulching material shall be evenly applied, and if necessary, anchored
to the soil. Mulch should achieve a minimum 70% cover, and a minimum of
2 inch height above the surface. Inorganic material used for mulching
should consist of pieces of .75 to 2 inches in diameter.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ 75 FR 39367 (July 8, 2010).
\17\ ``Technical Support Document for EPA's Proposed Rulemaking
on Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan as
submitted by the State of California, for the Imperial County Air
Pollution Control District,'' U.S. EPA, Region 9 Air Division,
February 2010, (2010 TSD) pg. 9.
\18\ See Latino Issues Forum v. EPA, 558 F.3d 936, 949 (9th Cir.
2009).
\19\ ``Technical Support Document for EPA's Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking on Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan
as submitted by the State of California, for the Imperial County Air
Pollution Control District,'' U.S. EPA, Region 9 Air Division,
December 2012, (2012 TSD) pg. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment #10 (p.8)--Comite notes that ICAPCD Rule 806 only applies
to farms above 40 acres, while SCAQMD and Maricopa's rules apply to
farms above 10 acres, and Comite claims that ICAPCD's BACM analysis
does not address whether lowering Rule 806's threshold could obtain
further emission reductions that are significant and economically
feasible.
Response #10--It is standard practice for air pollution regulations
to exempt small sources which contribute relatively few emissions and
are the least cost-effective to control. ICAPCD's 2009 PM10
SIP estimates that Rule 806's 40 acre threshold captures 97% of total
emissions,\20\ suggesting that there are no further emission reductions
that are significant and economically feasible. While SCAQMD and
Maricopa have lower applicability thresholds than ICAPCD, rules
approved as BACM in other areas have higher thresholds (e.g., SJVAPCD's
is 100 acres). We also note that this threshold remains unchanged from
the previous version of ICAPCD Rule 806, and no comments were provided
when EPA acted on it in 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ 2010 TSD, pg 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment #11--Comite claims that ICAPCD Rule 806 imposes
insufficient controls on unpaved farm roads compared to Rule 805
requirements for Imperial non-farm roads and other area requirements
for farm roads. As an example, the comment notes that SJVAPCD requires
farm roads to meet control measures required for agricultural
operations in addition to general requirements that apply to all other
roads.
Response #11--We agree that this was a deficiency of the previous
version of ICAPCD Regulation VIII. However, ICAPCD has revised Rule 806
Sections D.2, D.3, E.3 and E.4 to specifically and adequately address
this issue. Revised Section E.3, for instance, now requires
stabilization of agricultural unpaved roads with 50 or more vehicle
daily trips (VDT), similar to that required of non-agricultural roads
with 50 or more VDT in ICAPCD Rule 805 Section E.2., and of all unpaved
roads with 75 or more VDT subject to SJVAPCD Rule 8081 Section 5.2. See
also Response 6 above.
Comment #12--Comite asserts that ICAPCD Rule 806's windblown dust
controls are inadequate and generally describes the requirements in
SCAQMD Rule 403's Agricultural Handbook. The comment states that SCAQMD
requires cessation of soil preparation and maintenance activities when
winds exceed 25 mph, as well as implementation of one of four specific
practices to reduce windblown dust from actively disturbed fields and
three of nine specific practices to reduce windblown dust from inactive
(fallow) fields.
Response #12--SCAQMD's Agricultural Handbook and Imperial Rule 806
are structured somewhat differently, making a direct comparison between
the two programs difficult.\21\ For example, SCAQMD does not
specifically refer to the prohibition on tilling or mulching when wind
speeds exceed 25 mph as a ``windblown dust control,'' whereas ICAPCD
Rule 806 includes specific provisions, E.6.1 and 2, as ``windblown dust
controls.'' Nevertheless, we note that the SCAQMD prohibition applies
only when winds exceed 25 mph. In comparison, ICAPCD requires operators
to comply with the windblown dust controls specified in E.6.1. (for
active cultivation) and E.6.2. (for fallow fields), regardless of wind
speed. The commenter provides no evidence for a finding that the SCAQMD
prohibition is more effective than ICAPCD's more generally applicable
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ We note that the commenter lists the general requirements
in the SCAQMD rule but does not provide any comparison or analysis
of the two programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The comment also states that SCAQMD requires operators to comply
with ``one of four specific practices to reduce windblown dust from
actively disturbed fields.'' Again, because the SCAQMD rule does not
specifically refer to ``windblown dust,'' it is difficult to determine
whether SCAQMD distinguishes between regulating ``windblown dust'' and
regulating fugitive dust directly emitted during tillage, cultivation,
and mulching operations. Nevertheless, we note that the SCAQMD rule
requires selection and implementation of one option for ``active
lands,'' whereas ICAPCD regulates direct emissions of fugitive dust by
requiring selection and implementation of three options, one each from
three separate categories of activities: (1) Land preparation (E.1.);
(2) harvest (E.2.); and (3) cropland-other (E.5.).
For inactive operations, SCAQMD requires operators to select and
comply with three of eight specified practices; we believe the
comparable provisions for ICAPCD are found at section E.6.1. of Rule
806, in which ICAPCD requires selection and compliance with one of
eight specified practices. We note that the practices specified in the
SCAQMD rule for inactive lands are essentially identical to the
practices specified in E.6.2. of the ICAPCD rule for fallow lands.
Although it appears that SCAQMD requires more measures for inactive
lands than ICAPCD requires for fallow lands, the commenter does not
acknowledge other ways in which the ICAPCD rule is more stringent than
the SCAQMD program. Overall, both the SCAQMD and ICAPCD programs
require agricultural operations to comply with five options each:
SCAQMD requires compliance with the 25 mph prohibition, one option for
active cultivation and three options for inactive lands; ICAPCD
requires selection and implementation of one option to control
windblown dust on actively cultivated lands, three additional options
for actively cultivated lands, and one option for fallow lands. The
commenter provided no information to support a finding that SCAQMD's
approach of imposing more requirements on inactive lands is more
stringent or more effective at controlling fugitive dust than ICAPCD's
approach of imposing more requirements on actively cultivated lands. As
we have noted previously, regulations for agricultural sources must be
sufficiently flexible to account for the wide range of factors such as
crop type, herd size, equipment type, soil type, weather and market
conditions, economic circumstances and facility size. In addition,
there is a limited amount of technical information regarding the cost
effectiveness of available control measures for agricultural
operations. See 71 FR 7684 (February 14, 2006). As a result, it is
reasonable to expect that BACM measures for this activity would vary
depending on the agricultural practices in different areas and, in
fact, Maricopa, South Coast, and San Joaquin agricultural CMP rules
have all been

[[Page 23681]]

approved as BACM despite differences similar to that identified in the
comment. Finally, we note that the Imperial Rule 806 is based on and is
at least as stringent as SJVUAPCD Rule 4550, which EPA approved as
having BACM-level controls. Id.
Comment #13--Comite states that ICAPCD Rule 802 Section D.1 and
Rule 806 Section D.4 provide ICAPCD with excessive discretion to alter
SIP-approved control measures, particularly with regard to deviations
from required control measures (Rule 802) and development of
alternative control measures (Rule 806). The comment notes that EPA's
2010 action on Regulation VIII specifically identified the discretion
in Rule 802 Section D.1 as a deficiency.
Response #13--We agree that Rule 802 Section D.1 would be improved
by removing the discretion described in the comment. However, bulk
material, the subject of Imperial Rule 802, has not been identified as
a significant PM10 source subject to BACM requirements. As a
result, ICAPCD is not required to improve Rule 802 in this way at this
time, ICAPCD did not revise and resubmit Rule 802, and EPA is not
acting on Rule 802 at this time. See also Response 3 above.
With regard to the commenter's reference to Rule 806, Section D.4, we
assume the comment intended to refer to Rule 806 Section D.6 which
contains discretion. This discretion is similar to discretion approved
in SJVAPCD Rule 4550 Section 6.2.3.2, and has been restricted by
requiring alternative CMPs in ICAPCD to be at least equivalent to the
most effective CMPs already available. While such discretion may not be
appropriate for more traditional stationary sources, it is reasonable
at this time given the variability and limited regulatory history of
the affected sources.\22\ As ICAPCD gains experience regulating this
industry, it may be appropriate to reduce this discretion in the
future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ See, e.g., 71 FR 7684 and 7686 (February 14, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment #14--Comite asserts that EPA cannot stay CAA sanctions
based on a proposed approval of revised Regulation VIII, but only upon
final and full approval.
Response #14--As explained in our Interim Final Rule, we invoked
the good cause exception under the APA as the basis for not providing
public comment before the action took effect.\23\ Our review of the
State's submittal indicated that it was more likely than not that the
State had submitted a revision to the SIP that addressed the issues we
identified in our earlier action that started the sanctions clocks. We
concluded that it was therefore not in the public interest to impose
sanctions. Our use of the good cause exception thus relieved
restrictions that were unnecessary because the State had already taken
the steps it needed to take to submit an approvable rule. The only
action that remained to be taken was EPA's action to complete our
rulemaking, including reviewing and responding to public comments on
our proposed action. As explained in our Interim Final Rule, we could
have disapproved the rule, if justified by public comments. However, we
are now finalizing our action with an approval of the State's
submittal, which further supports the reasonableness of our use of the
good cause exception to avoid needless hardship on entities and
individuals in the Imperial Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ 78 FR 894 (January 7, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment #15--CBD claims that proposed rule revisions are inadequate
to address the serious and ongoing PM10 air pollution
concerns in Imperial County, particularly regarding emissions due to
OHV use on public lands. The comment asks EPA to reject the rule
revisions because they will not adequately improve air quality as
required by law.
Response #15--ICAPCD revised and resubmitted Regulation VIII
primarily to address the CAA obligation for PM10 BACM, and
EPA is similarly evaluating the rules primarily to ensure that they
fulfill BACM. The broader air pollution issues raised by this comment,
as to whether the rules are sufficient to address Imperial's overall
PM10 problem, are appropriately addressed separately through
the CAA obligations for ICAPCD and CARB to develop a PM10
attainment demonstration.
Comment #16--CBD states that the proposed rule revisions fail to
provide sufficient guidance, limitations or enforcement measures to
ensure that the OHV DCPs are adequate and fully implemented. The
comment asserts that the revised rule relies on good faith
implementation by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and California
Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR), which is not warranted by
past practice.
Response #16--ICAPCD has significantly revised the OHV DCP
requirements in ICAPCD Rule 800 Sections D.3 and F to make them more
stringent and enforceable. For example, Section F.5.b.2 now requires
maps showing OHV areas, Section F.5.c now explicitly requires
stabilization of high-traffic roads and traffic areas during OHV
events, Section F.5.d now requires description of all monitoring and
corrective action to reduce emissions during OHV events, and Section
F.7 establishes additional requirements for new OHV areas. While we
agree that some of the OHV requirements are not as specific and
prescriptive as many requirements for traditional stationary sources
(e.g., facility X must emit under Y pounds/day), they are adequately
enforceable and appropriate given the variability (e.g., the popularity
and thus emissions of specific OHV areas change over time) and limited
regulatory history of this activity. We also believe these controls are
sufficiently stringent to fulfill the CAA BACM requirements as
demonstrated by the 2012 BACM assessment. See also Response 2
above. However, we encourage ICAPCD to consider further controls in OHV
areas if additional emission reductions are needed in the future to
meet federal and/or State ambient air quality standards.
Comment #17--CBD states that BLM recently issued a proposed
Recreational Area Management Plan (RAMP) and Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) proposing to increase the area in Imperial open to OHV
use by 40,000 acres, further increasing PM10 emissions. The
comment notes that EPA had previously expressed concerns about
potential increased air quality impacts of the BLM's preferred
alternative in the FEIS and that BLM largely ignored EPA's comments.
The comment asserts that additional shortcomings of the FEIS are
further evidence that BLM cannot be relied on for good-faith efforts to
comply with ICAPCD Rule 800.
Response #17--EPA's previous comments regarding BLM's RAMP and FEIS
are independent of today's action on revisions to ICAPCD's Regulation
VIII. Revisions to Rule 800 Section F.7 establish additional
requirements for new OHV areas, but do not prohibit increased OHV areas
and associated PM10 emissions. ICAPCD Regulation VIII's OHV
requirements are adequately enforceable and do not rely solely on good-
faith efforts at compliance. See also Response 16 above.
Comment #18--ADEQ recommends that EPA continue to evaluate BACM on
a case-by-case basis, considering the relative contributions of source
categories such as OHVs, to ensure that the most cost-effective control
measures appropriate for contributing anthropogenic sources in each
planning area are adopted and implemented.
Response #18--EPA agrees that local conditions should be considered
as part of a BACM analysis and ICAPCD has included such information in
its BACM analysis. For example, EPA agrees that

[[Page 23682]]

ICAPCD has adequately demonstrated BACM for OHV activity based in part
on the 2012 BACM assessment which includes discussion of local
conditions (e.g., less than 1% of open lands are urban vacant areas in
Imperial County compared to 52% of Maricopa's nonattainment area open
lands.) \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ 2012 BACM Assessment, pg. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment #19--ADEQ does not support any presumption that inclusion
of prerequisites similar to those in ICAPCD Rule 801 Section D are
necessary to determine that a rule is BACM. Rather, the comment
encourages EPA to continue reviewing each rule in the context of each
area's overall air pollution control strategy when making a
determination that a rule fulfills BACM or most stringent control
measure requirements.
Response #19--As mentioned in Response 18 above, we agree
that local conditions should be considered as part of a BACM analysis.
We also believe that the existence of requirements in other areas
should be considered as part of a BACM analysis. For example, it would
be relevant for a BACM analysis for OHV in Arizona to consider both
ICAPCD Rule 801 and any local conditions specific to Arizona. However,
today's action regards ICAPCD Rules 800, 804, 805 and 806, and nothing
in the comment suggests any change to our proposed approval.

III. EPA Action

No comments changed our assessment of the rule as described in our
proposed action. Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the
Act, EPA is fully approving these rules into the California SIP. This
action permanently terminates all sanctions and FIP implications
associated with the July 8, 2010 final action.
EPA's preliminary view is that the Regulation VIII rules as revised
in October 2012 constitute reasonable control of the sources covered by
Regulation VIII for the purpose of evaluating whether an exceedance of
the PM10 NAAQS is an exceptional event pursuant to the
exceptional events rule, including reasonable and appropriate control
measures on significant contributing anthropogenic sources. This
statement does not extend to exceedances of NAAQS other than the
PM10 NAAQS, or to events that differ significantly in terms
of meteorology, sources, or conditions from the events that were at
issue in EPA's July 2010 final action and associated litigation. EPA is
not making any determinations at this time with respect to any specific
PM10 exceedances.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 21, 2013. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: March 27, 2013.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52 [AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(424) to read as
follows:

Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *
(c) * * *
(424) New and amended regulations for the following APCDs were
submitted

[[Page 23683]]

on November 7, 2012 by the Governor's designee.
(i) Incorporation by Reference
(A) Imperial County Air Pollution Control District
(1) Rule 800, ``General Requirements for Control of Fine
Particulate Matter PM10,'' amended on October 16, 2012.
[2] Rule 804, ``Open Areas,'' amended on October 16, 2012.
[3] Rule 805, ``Paved and Unpaved Roads,'' amended on October 16,
2012.
[4] Rule 806, ``Conservation Management Practices (CMPs),'' amended
on October 16, 2012.

[FR Doc. 2013-09307 Filed 4-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.